get_leaderboard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and ranking basis, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the result is paginated beyond the limit parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the relevant metrics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains what the leaderboard contains and the fields returned alongside the ranking. It does not explain authentication or error behavior, but those gaps are minor for this tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single limit parameter is already documented with its default and maximum. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('creator reputation leaderboard'), and explains what the leaderboard shows (top creators ranked by reputation score with associated metrics). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_arena_rankings or get_my_reputation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. It implies the tool is for retrieving a reputation leaderboard, but an agent must infer when this is preferable to get_arena_rankings or get_my_reputation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.